[PB1789]

Originally Posted by JOHN G

Is there anyone commited to both the KJV and 5-point Calvinism?

Yes there are!

Go to Sermon Audio.com and look for/type in "Trinitarian Bible Society". They have several speakers with sermons/lectures on the topic of A.V./K.J. and the dangers of Modern Versions, and they/we are Reformed.

Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley (just retired) founded the Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland. They have branches in other countries, including Faith Free Presbyterian Church in Greenville, South Carolina...

...Next door to N.C. btw, so you could visit them next Lord's Day and find out that Calvinists/Reformed folks don't have horns and fangs.

He has hundreds of Sermons on Sermon Audio.com as do the gents from Faith Free Pres. in Greenville. The Free Presbyterians have started a seminary there also. Several 1689-Reformed Baptists/SBC-Founders group are A.V./K.J. folks.

[chette777]

If the KJV taught man didn't have a free will (total depravity). A person must make his own choice to believe no one not even God can make it for him. But the KJV teaches that one must believe or exercise their faith or belief. 4 points left.

If the KJV Bible taught Predestination (unconditional election)as a salvation Doctrine I guess you could have a Calvinist point, But seeing the KJV only teaches the Predestinate are Christian Doctrines meaning that Predestination only occurs after a person believes (Romans 8 and Ephesians 1), and not before as Calvinist teach. 3 points left

How about Limited atonement? the KJV Bible is clear that Christ died for everyone and once for all in Timothy and Hebrews. so atonement is made for all but not all will apply the blood to themselves by way of making a choice or exercising faith in Christ finished work for all. 2 points left

Irresistible grace well that hooks into Unconditional election so if one doctrine fails they both fail. We have all seen people resist grace but how much clearer than in Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Only One point Left

Preservation of the saint. Now we are all told God will by his power someday unite us to the Lord in an event called the gathering in the clouds known as teh rapture. that is the promise of true preserving for the believer. otherwise we have no promises God will preserve us through every situation, i.e. World trade Center, automobile accidents, cancer and all the like, show that Christians are not preserved from harm in this world. so maybe you have half a point here.

Conclusion the KJV does not teach The Calvinistic TULIP imposed in 1614 (?) Council of Dort on the Christian community as True Salvation Doctrine. The KJV does not teach the TULIP therefore it is a doctrine of man not the teaching of the word of God.

[JOHN G]

Thanks Chette.

BTW, preservation or perserverance?

[PeterAV]

Total depravity...All Calvinists beleive in a free will.

But it is under the control of the LORD and his soveriegnty.
Need the Holy Ghost wooing.
Need the preacher preaching, and need the eternal word.
Need the person's choice to believe.
There are many things that are NEEDED for salvation.
*******
Unconditional Election...this is only what you have been taught.

You did NOT get this from just the Bible alone.
Private interpretation. Just as you confuse Calvinism and claim a man made doctrine.
You have just done the same.
He called us and knew us BEFORE the world ever was.
Unconditional election is simply showing the GROUNDS for salvation.
Just like in point one, there are many things NEEDED in salvation, yet they are not the ground of our salvation.
The preacher, the word, the Holy Ghost wooing and convicting, the person choosing to trust the word of the LORD.
These are all simply conditions that need to be met.
But the ground of salvation is in God's own love.
God so chooses as pleases him.
*******
Limited Atonement...is efectual only in those that are choosen from the foundation of the world.
Even though God would LIKE all to be saved... he nows it would not bring about the most amount of good, nor bring glory to God.
So he at least makes sure of those that are his.
We know that God's WILLING in Peter is not that all will indeed be saved.
But the word willing is in the same framework as strong desires.
God sees fit to not allow certain to be saved, as they fill out certain conditions.
*******

Irresistable Grace... is irresistable to those whom he has choosen before the foundation of the world. In other words None of whom are his will be lost. None of whom he wisely chooses will ulimately reject him.
Is it possible to reject God? Yes, but God works efectually in those whom are saved according to God.
Yes, God dies for all, but does that mean ALL WILL be saved? No.
We choose the grace of God but our action is never alone. That is because a saving choice is preceded and dovetailed with God's Soveriegnty.
God woos and we respond.
To the believer, he works efectively.
To the Unbeliever he is now the judge that they have to deal with eventually.
*******
Perseverance Of The Saints
Rapture is a man made doctrine.
Especially pre-trib.
That was promoted by a Catholics as was Amillenialism.
Even Darby [I believe] had a Catholic background.
If GOD chooses us, FIRST by the calling and wooing of the Holy Ghost and bringing the word to us, and then elects us to be his own, choosing a few out of the many, making sure his calling is efective, then of course we will be preserved. He will loose none.
*******
Surely the Remonstrance is over many hundred years ago.
*******

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

[MC1171611]

PeterAV, are you saying you believe this claptrap?

Hmmm, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but from this thread can we conclude that PB1789 and PeterAV are both Calvinists? How about Brandon Stagg the site admin, where do you stand on this issue? Thanks....

[George]

Aloha all,

A discussion about the Doctrine of Calvinism should be in the Doctrine Section of the Forum.I believe it would be more appropriate to discuss this issue in the "Doctrine" Section of the Forum - so my comments follow in a new Thread: "CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?" <> http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...53&postcount=1

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Hmmm, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but from this thread can we conclude that PB1789 and PeterAV are both Calvinists? How about Brandon Stagg the site admin, where do you stand on this issue? Thanks....

(Staggs)

I am not a Calvinist.

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...6&postcount=11
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=19
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...6&postcount=29

Thank you Bro. Staggs.

[bibleprotector]

Now to get on track again. More on the King James Only Controversy.

INTRODUCTION

There is a great difference between the modern version view and the King James Bible only view. Also, there are parallels between this issue and the evolution versus creation debate.

APPROACHING THE BIBLE

How we approach the Bible today, and whether we believe there is a perfect manifestation of the Bible in one book depends actually on our heart. It is dependant on our “world view”.

Evidence exists today. Old manuscripts are not in the past (though they existed in the past). Old manuscripts are here now.

Depending on our “world view”, we will interpret the evidence (the old manuscripts) into a narrative of how the Bible came to us today, and whether or not we have a perfect Bible right now.

WHERE DO WE START?

Many scientific and other innovations and advances were discovered after the Renaissance and Reformation. If you look at the British Empire or America, you can see how much knowledge has increased. Many of the scientific pioneers, like Isaac Newton, had a high view of the Bible.

Paul wrote, “And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.” (2 Thess. 3:2). This verse says that having no faith is unreasonable. In other words, reason and faith go together. That is why proper Christian inquiry is important and good.

Opposite to this are the rationalists who divorce reason and faith. They think that advancement comes through humanistic endeavour. They think that religion gets in the way of progress.

Today we can either believe that the Bible is true, self-authenticating and explore it on that basis, or else we can start from theories about the early history of the Scriptures, which always emphasise the weakness of men (i.e. that people made mistakes in copying), and always minimises the involvement of God in actually keeping the Bible from mistakes.

Thus, we either look at the King James Bible and receive a doctrine that it is true, pure, etc., and therefore interpret history in that light, or else, we start from the idea that man is subject to mistakes today, and that despite our best efforts, we will never have a perfect Bible, and history likewise is interpreted in this light (which seems to tend toward the most outlandish claims dressed up in serious sounding language, and an attachment to the most divergent manuscripts on the weakest arguments).

HOW WE INTERPRET THE BIBLE IN HISTORY

Remember that interpretations and narrative of what happened during, say, the Dark Ages exist right now. It is the case which best fits the evidence.

As long as people are disputing on that ground, they have no final authority of appeal. This is why it is heavily practiced by modernist scholars, because they believe that there is no final authority of appeal, but the misguided faith in the “learning” of modernist men.

Modernist thought, by the way, is contradictory, in that while it tends toward denying “faith”, it actually is a faith, and a blind one at that. This is obvious, because people who bring out anti-KJBO propaganda demonstrate an a priori commitment to their theory, which they purport to be fact. Moreover, as much as they have attachment to human reasoning (the deification of man by himself), they hold the contradictory notion that no man is right, and that all are subject to erring.

That is why it is important for Bible believers to stand on the Scripture as it has been given right now as the primary argument, in that the Bible speaks of God, and since God must be working now, this must be His Word right now: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13). “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15).

If we have a perfect Bible today, then we have a sure point of reference to understand what actually was occurring in the Dark Ages. In other words, history is not just subjectivity, or a changing story about the past, or today’s current truth, but we have a link to the true view, and we are able to enter into God’s view... so a Christian inquirer might be said to be unlocking the secrets of God’s creation since we are surrounded by an absolute framework.

People who argue against KJBO must therefore have to accept some sort of subjectivity, some sort of hindrance to human achievement, and most drastically, some sort of limitation of God, even to the point where some deny His existence.

BUILDING UP FROM THE FOUNDATION

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

If we have the perfect, infallible Word of God in one book present right now, we can see how everything else will be built up and in place: a proper interpretation of Scripture, right doctrines, proper laws, pure conscience.

If we do not in practice have a perfect Bible today, and hold to a doctrine that we do not know if we can have one, then the whole building of our faith and doctrine begins to crumble. That is why there is a direct link between rejecting the King James Bible and a lukewarm Christianity.